Re: Br?n on global warming (paper)
>> >> >> But if any of you want a copy of my 14 page paper "Beamed Energy and >> the Economics of Space Based Solar Power" and the spread sheets that >> were used to construct the models, let me know. >> >> Please don't ask if you are not willing to read the paper (or at least try). > > As expected, nobody from this list asked for a copy. Yet. Put your toys back in the pram. As you'll have seen from other of my posts, I was kind of busy at the weekend and in no physical state to read your paper after self-propelling up and down hills for 130 miles or so, so wasn't going to ask for it until I had time to read it properly. As you yourself requested... Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: national security and climate change
On 22/02/2010, at 11:34 AM, john...@gmail.com wrote: > The US Army's Strategic Studies Institute has a number of papers addressing > national security issues related to climate change. AFAIK, they are available > for free as PDF downloads. Go here, > http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=862 > to see one published in August 2008. Food for thought, eh? Yes. I've read most of that lot in the past. But it's still a hoax, apparently. *sigh* Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Social solutions rather than engineering ones
Keith Henson wrote: I am appalled (though not surprised) that people on this list who "don't have any answers" suggest "it might just require the end of wasteful materialism" and joke about soylent green. I agree, how dare they! Except, I don't remember anyone saying that. I remember some people suggesting alternate energy sources, I remember someone talking about solar (I don't think that solar is feasible in the short-term, which is why I support nuclear for the time being), I remember myself saying Nuclear as it is a very viable, reliable source of energy that produces 0 greenhouse gases. As far as I remember, no one suggested "the end of wasteful materialism". I did suggest that we may have to be a little more efficient about our energy use and make some compromises (for the sake of humanity and the ecosystem), but I never said that we must end materialism, and I certainly don't remember anyone calling for the dying off of the population. *You* posted a link to an article saying the population is going to die off, and almost everyone who replied about it responded with skepticism, meaning we don't believe it is going to happen. Maybe someone else said these things you say are bing said and I skipped it though, because I don't have a lot of time to read all this stuff, being employed as a research assistant and working full time towards my Master's degree. Perhaps you can quote the person or persons who said these things to refresh my memory? Energy hungry synthetic nitrogen is the reason for something between 1/3 and 1/2 of crop yield. The ending of famines in Europe was the result of railroads more than any other factor. This allowed grain to be shipped from places with good crops to places where the crops had failed. Railroads allowed cities to grow, and cities do far less ecological damage than spread out humans. The wording of this was just ambiguous enough to make me wonder what exactly you are saying I had to read this several times before I understood what you were saying. Yes, Ammonium Nitrate is used as a chemical fertilizers and helps crops to grow. I've heard claims that if we didn't have chemical fertilizers like Ammonium Nitrate, we would not have enough food to feed even half the globe's current population. I won't bother countering with tired old arguments I've used before like the majority of American crops are used to feed livestock, not people. What I will say is this: yes, current methods in Ammonium Nitrate production require lots of energy (specifically producing anhydrous ammonia for the chemical reaction), but more efficient methods are being explored and as the production reaction is an exothermic one, methods of capturing and using that heat energy are being explored. More to the point though, all this means is that we need energy to produce it. Nothing says that that energy has to come from coal, it can just as easily come from nuclear power, solar power, wind power. If we shift away from fossil fuels and towards another primary power source, that won't stop the production of Ammonium Nitrate. The article I wrote for the oil drum, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5485 got a lot of these comments, so many that another blog picked up on the discussion: "If you take a few minutes to read this blog, and again the comments, you find the dissonance on full display. On the one hand you have a person saying that there may be an energy answer after fossil fuels. On the other hand you have lots of people not only saying it is not possible, but directly arguing that a human die-back is more desirable than cheap energy." Nuclear power is just as cheap as coal. Moreover, renewable sources like wind and solar require large up-front investments, but in the long term average out to about the same cost as coal because once it is there, all you have to do is maintain it, you don't need to keep digging for more fuel for it. If you think so little of the people on this list as to equate them with typical blog posters, then why are you here? Learn quickly, straw men arguments don't go well on this list. If I had to estimate, I would say that the *average* IQ on the list is *at least* 1 standard deviation above the average. We aren't your everyday group of people, so treating us like we aren't as smart as you: "I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math." or setting up straw men to knock down is not going to convince a one of us. Most of us are in science related fields and almost all are card-carrying skeptics, and as any good scientist/skeptic knows: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You claim that without exploiting more coal power our entire country will fall into the crapper and 6/7ths of the worlds population is going to die as a result, that's a pretty extraordinary claim, p
national security and climate change
The US Army's Strategic Studies Institute has a number of papers addressing national security issues related to climate change. AFAIK, they are available for free as PDF downloads. Go here, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=862 to see one published in August 2008. Food for thought, eh? john ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Social solutions rather than engineering ones
I am appalled (though not surprised) that people on this list who "don't have any answers" suggest "it might just require the end of wasteful materialism" and joke about soylent green. Energy hungry synthetic nitrogen is the reason for something between 1/3 and 1/2 of crop yield. The ending of famines in Europe was the result of railroads more than any other factor. This allowed grain to be shipped from places with good crops to places where the crops had failed. Railroads allowed cities to grow, and cities do far less ecological damage than spread out humans. The article I wrote for the oil drum, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5485 got a lot of these comments, so many that another blog picked up on the discussion: "If you take a few minutes to read this blog, and again the comments, you find the dissonance on full display. On the one hand you have a person saying that there may be an energy answer after fossil fuels. On the other hand you have lots of people not only saying it is not possible, but directly arguing that a human die-back is more desirable than cheap energy." Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming (paper)
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro > wrote: > >> Keith Henson wrote: >>> >>> I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know >>> if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry >>> and math. >>> >> Probably not, we are very stupid when it comes down to the math >> used in astrodynamics, chemistry or economy. >> >> Alberto Monteiro > > I left off the other factor, lack of interest. > > But if any of you want a copy of my 14 page paper "Beamed Energy and > the Economics of Space Based Solar Power" and the spread sheets that > were used to construct the models, let me know. > > Please don't ask if you are not willing to read the paper (or at least try). As expected, nobody from this list asked for a copy. Keith ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Weekend cycling report (crosspost)
Hey all, Thanks to those who from the lists who sponsored me and my colleagues for the Melbourne Summer Cycle - we were riding to raise money to support those living with with MS and supporting research into MS. Today's ride was very busy, and I was a little concerned about the distance - more on that in a bit. The sponsorship has been fantastic - personally I've been pledged $340, my team of 4 raised $1680, and the event as a whole has raised over half-a-million bucks for the cause. So thank you all for your generosity. So to the event itself - it was approximately a 40km (25 mile) ride around the inner suburbs and CBD of Melbourne. There were THOUSANDS of people out on the road, most of whom behaved well and followed the road rules. As always there were a number who don't know what "single file", "keep left" and "obey the road rules" are, but I saw no serious crashes and everyone seemed to be having a lot of fun. You can see my GPS track here as proof of the ride: http://connect.garmin.com/activity/25175064 So, on to why I was a little concerned about a mere 40km - yesterday I did another fundraising ride to help out the regions so devastated by the bushfires of Black Saturday, 7th February 2009. As with last year's ride which was in May, we started in the town of Marysville, which was to all intents and purposes wiped off the map last year. To get a scale for it, here's the town before the fires http://tinyurl.com/yf66b86 and after http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200902/r339008_1539848.jpg , and this was only one of the towns destroyed. The Marysville-Lake Mountain Challenge does a tour of the region, culminating in (an optional...) climb of Lake Mountain, which is one of the steepest climbs in the state - 3.5km of 10-11% gradient at the start, and pretty solid 4-6% the rest of the way. So I had 160km of riding under my belt from Saturday (a bit over 7 hours in the saddle) and was rightly concerned that I was going to be very very sore for today. But I actually pulled up pretty well and because I was escorting friends who are considerably slower than I and we were in a lot of stop-start traffic most of the ride, I didn't have to work too hard today. Here's Saturday's GPS track for comparison... http://connect.garmin.com/activity/25072020 Now I have to concentrate on my final preparation for the 3 Peaks Challenge in March - 230km with an awful lot of climbing... Thanks again to all who sponsored me. Charlie. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
